[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APR 28, 2010
No. 09-12619 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket Nos. 09-00129-CV-OC-10-GRJ
07-00049-CR-OC
ARNULFO CRUZ BENITEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(April 28, 2010)
Before BARKETT, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Arnulfo Benitez appeals pro se the denial of his motion to vacate his
sentence for conspiring to possess marijuana and cocaine and possessing with
intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; 21
U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii). We granted a certificate of appealability
to address whether the district court erred by ruling, without an evidentiary
hearing, that Benitez knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal after he
allegedly instructed his attorney to file a notice of appeal. We reverse the
judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.
In January 2008, Benitez entered pleas of guilt to charges of conspiracy to
possess and possession of marijuana. During the change of plea hearing, Benitez
stated through an interpreter that he had completed six years of school in Mexico,
he could read and write in Spanish a “little,” and he did not “understand very
much” of the English language. After Benitez waived his right to a trial by jury
and the prosecutor provided a factual basis for the pleas, the district court accepted
Benitez’s pleas of guilt. The district court later sentenced Benitez to 70 months of
imprisonment, and the district court told Benitez that he could appeal the judgment.
In May 2008, the United States Marshal served Benitez an order of the
district court, which stated in English that Benitez had seven days in which to “file
a declaration” stating either that he had waived his right to appeal or that “the
election not to file a notice of appeal was his . . . informed and voluntary choice.”
2
The order stated that the “[f]ailure to respond” would be “deemed by the Court to
be an acknowledgement” that Benitez had declined to appeal. Benitez did not
respond to the order.
In March 2009, Benitez moved to vacate his sentence on the ground that his
trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal. In support of
his motion, Benitez filed an affidavit stating that he had requested that his counsel
“appeal the sentence”; his counsel had agreed to “put an appeal”; his counsel sent
him a “letter and a paper to fill out for the appeal”; he “believed [he] had an appeal
pending for a sentence reduction”; and he did not learn until after the deadline to
appeal had expired that counsel had not filed a notice of appeal.
The district court denied Benitez’s motion sua sponte. The district court
ruled that Benitez “waived his right of appeal” by failing to respond to the order to
file a declaration. The district court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing to
address Benitez’s argument that his trial counsel acted ineffectively by failing to
file a notice of appeal.
The district court erred when it determined that Benitez had waived his right
to appeal by failing to respond to the order to file a declaration. The right to appeal
is a statutory right that may be waived, but the waiver must be knowing and
voluntary. United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 1993).
3
“[F]or a waiver to be [made knowingly], it must be informed.” Id. at 1350 n.16.
Benitez did not execute a written waiver of his right to appeal nor did the district
court ever discuss with Benitez his right to appeal. See id. at 1351.
The government concedes that Benitez’s failure to respond to the order to
file a declaration was “ambiguous.” Benitez had only a rudimentary education in
his native language, he was unfamiliar with the English language, and he required
the assistance of an interpreter at the change of plea hearing and at sentencing.
Benitez did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal when he failed
to respond to the order of the district court.
We REVERSE the judgment of the district court that Benitez knowingly
and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, and we REMAND for further
proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
4